whosmatt

+1 Even with 105 this is easy.

noodle soup

+1

I use a 12-25 11spd cassette with either a 50/36 or 50/39 on my road bikes. The 50x12-25 works great for 99.9% of my riding, but when I get into legit climbs, it's nice to have a little ring.

You might be able to get close to the same High/Low range of choices(with 1x12), but not without large jumps.

Tunnelrat81

I would say it has much more to do with how well you know your own preferences than anything we can suggest. Ultimately it completely depends on your usage and preferences. Only you can really answer that. Personally, I get by on a mtn. bike that has a wide gear spread over 9 speeds, but on my road bike I'm fully the opposite direction running compact crank (50/34) and an 11-23 cassette, and I love it. Larger gear spacing would bother me enough on a regular basis that being limited to 23T on the cassette is preferable. That's even considering that we're in a fairly mountainous area. Today's ride for me was a 50 mi. loop with around 4K ft. of climbing. That also means that I use my 11 cog all the time while descending. I'm not a particularly strong cyclist, and I don't race. Just a motivated enthusiast who enjoys fast group rides.

-Jeremy

Adrianinkc

Since November I have been riding a Sram 1x on road, gravel, and commuting. (Cross bike) I love it, so much so I haven't ridden my road bike but maybe 3 times this year, I have done fast group rides as well as a century with it and I really don't have any desire to use a front DR ever again. I'm running a 38 chainring and a 11-36 cassette, top speed is roughly 34mph at a high cadence.

Campag4life

You must be superman riding that bike in fast group rides. Or...your so called fast group rides aren't that fast. My guess is the latter. Against real fast guys aka rides with CAT racers in the mix, nobody wants the impediment of limited gearing...or any other aspect of bicycle performance. For all other riding it doesn't matter does it? You get there when you do.

Looigi

Gear spacing is a potential problem for road bikes. Especially in flatter areas, you're more likely to find yourself without the right gear than you are in disciplines like mountain biking or CX, where there's almost always varying grade, so if you don't have the optimal gear, the situation won't last long. On the road and riding solo, I don't find this much of a problem as I can always just adjust my speed. Where I do run into it is in fast group rides where I don't have the optimal gear for the speed, especially when pulling. This is also an issue for TTs.

Kopsis

FIFY

Your point is dead on. If you're trying to optimize performance over long relatively constant efforts, tighter spacing helps. This doesn't mean you can't hang on with a fast group ride, but it does mean you'll work harder than other riders. I did a lot of solo riding last summer on a 1x10 with a 40:11-32 and had a great time and got some pretty good segment scores. But when I went back to group rides I quickly switched back to 2x10 with 53/39:12-25.

That said, there are some 1x combos that are really not bad if you're not doing big climbs. A 46:11-28 SRAM has steps between 72 and 112 GI of 6, 7, 7, 8, 8, 9%. A 53/39:12-23 on the big ring in the same range is 6, 6, 6, 7, 7, 8% and about the same overall gear range (about 6 GI better on the high end and 2 GI worse on the low). The double is obviously still better, but not by a huge margin. But since the 1x doesn't really save you much more than a few grams on the road, it's still hard to make a strong case for it. Of course, people once said the same of doubles

Sy Reene

This would be a chart for a 1x11 with a 46 x 10-42. I guess there's "fast", and then there's fast. This seems to show a good clip of 32mph at 90 cadence in the 10 cog. Yes, downhill most would spin out before hitting 40mph though.



The same chart above seems to show that if you're not comfortable being able to spin up or down approx 5 rpms and hold there, ie. from your 'ideal' rpm, then a single chainring might not be appropriate.

Campag4life

Above is the point. There is no reason to with 2 chainrings. You can have your cake and eat it too....tight gearing and range low to high. Plus, further efficiency of lack of cross chaining. I have owned both. For competitive riding two chainrings is better. For cruising around or even solo training...commuting etc, a single chainring works fine.

kbarch

Off on a tangent - but would those cassettes be on separate wheels - maybe separate wheel sets altogether?

PepeM

Nah, the Vittoria wheels I have make it quite simple to change cassettes.

PepeM

Really? That is good to know. I guess I should stop riding (and racing) on my current 9-speed setup, since it goes 15-17-19. It was fun while it lasted.

RShantz

Work harder? I doubt that. Your watts would be the same.

RShantz

Serious question - why do you feel this way? Maybe you are a much stronger rider than I am so it matters to you. For me our flat group rides, 20'/mile elevation we average about 24mph for the 1-1.5 hour rides. This average will drop as the duration increases. I just provide this for reference. Anyway, I never feel like I'm missing a cog. Someone posted that if you are pulling it will be an issue. Not for me, if I'm pulling I ride at the cadence & gear I'm comfortable with. No body cares if the groups pace picks up .5mph or drops .5mph. When I'm in the line, I'm not pushing hard so to me gearing really isn't a big issue.

Now if we are doing a continually rotating 2 line bit, all is out the door as we're pushing so hard I don't have time to worry about gearing.

quanfer

Interesting discussion... . I do see some parallels between 1x and 2x and triples vs 2x before that. You have same ranges, larger gaps, and negligible weight savings. The sacrifice is more philosophical than practical. Making the system simpler, even if it seems unnecessary with modern FDs. The last point I'd bring up though is the use of a clutch derailleur. Would be useful for some gravel stretches, but otherwise does it have any advantages on the road?

Campag4life

No..that is wrong. There is a substantive difference in gearing between 1 and 2 chainrings. It is more the philosophical. A smart man's philosophy is shaped by practical application. There is a discernible difference in gearing between the two. One of the other will work better for a given rider depending on strength, terrain and whether riding in a competitive environment.

quanfer

My apologies.. poorly worded that sentence. I meant that I drift towards 1x for reasons like simplicity, aesthetics, or quietness, and sacrifice practical applications of gear range/ratio in the process.

Adrianinkc

I'm personally ok with gaps, im comfortable with a wide range of cadence. It doesn't bother me to go from 80 to 110, I guess I'm superman.

Kopsis

But the energy expended by your body to make those watts would not. And it's energy expended, not rear wheel power that determines effort. If all cadences were equally efficient at turning biochemical energy into movement, we'd all be riding singlespeeds. Every rider has an optimal cadence for generating power. The more you deviate from that, the less efficient your body becomes. Small gaps in gear ratios are all about keeping you as close to that optimal cadence as possible to maximize efficiency.

Kopsis

My experience is that under normal road conditions, the retention from a NW chainring will be good enough that you don't need a clutch RD. I even made it through some CX races on a non-clutch RD without a chain drop (though there were enough I didn't that I finally switched). That assumes you set up a good centered chainline, and that you try to avoid soft-pedaling through bumpy stuff.

RShantz

[QUOTE=Kopsis;18638424]But the energy expended by your body to make those watts would not. And it's energy expended, not rear wheel power that determines effort. QUOTE]

My apologies. I thought there would be a linear relationship between "energy expended by your body" to rear wheel power (excluding the marginal losses in the driveline). I must have been mistaken all these years.

noodle soup

you explained that very well.

RollCNY

Would you please show any study that verifies any of that?

Kopsis

McNaughton, L. & Thomas, D. (1996) Effects of differing pedalling speeds on the power-duration relationship of high intensity cycle ergometry. Int. J. Sports Med. 17(4): 287-292.

Coyle, E.F. et al (1991) Physiological and biomechanical factors associated with elite endurance cycling performance. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 23(1): 93-107

Takaishi, T. et al (1996) Optimal pedalling rate estimated from neuromuscular fatigue for cyclists. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 28(12): 1492-1497.

Santalla, A. et al (2002) A new pedalling design: the Rotor-effects on cycling performance. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 34(11): 1854-1858.

Coyle, F. (2005) Improved muscular efficiency displayed as Tour de France champion matures. J. Appl. Physiol. 98(6): 2191-2196.

Marsh, A.P. & Martin, P.E. (1993) The association between cycling experience and preferred and most economical cadences. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 25(11): 1269-1274.

Gotshal, R.W. et al (1996) Cycling cadence alters exercise hemodynamics. Int. J.Sports Med. 17(1): 17-21.

PepeM

Does anyone know if there is anything special about the Rival/Force 1 cranks, or are they basically regular cranks with one ring instead of two? I'm wondering if it is necessary to have the crankset or if buying one of the 'x-sync' chainrings and slapping if to any 110BCD cranks would work.